Motion for Contempt against Boston City Council

For those loyal blog readers (who I appreciate very much) without much to read this holiday weekend, I am posting a copy of my complaint filed in November against the Boston City Council for further violations of the Open Meeting Law.

The nuts and bolts of this is as follows: I discovered the City Council had posted to be what I believed to be an illegal posting on the City Bulletin Board. Because, I am tired of all this litigation and wish the council would just obey the law. I called up President Feeney's office over a period of months and asked them to take it down. They refused and said it wasn't their problem. I also contacted Councilor Yoon and Tobin, also to no avail. I also became aware that the City Council met in Executive session about the Open Meeting Lawsuit currently pending from the Councils attorney. When I looked online, the Council minutes didn't reflect an executive session. I checked with the assistant clerk who assured me the minutes were correct and he told me that they rarely go into executive session and that it is always noted. You would think with a City Clerk getting paid about 100K a year, an assistant clerk and a stenographer at the City Council meetings they could record an executive session, but apparently that is "beyond their pay grade."

I filed the complaint, and the City has responded by: admitting they did go into executive session and they just forgot to note it, and by taking down the posting that I had asked them for months to take down. Pretty sad that you have to take the Council to court to eliminate an illegal posting. I would say that their taking down the posting is essentially an admission of guilt. Again.

We are waiting for the Court to decide the next course of action. Here is the complaint:


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUFFOLK, SS SUPERIOR COURT
C.A. No. 08-

)
Kevin McCrea )
Plaintiff )
v. )
)
The Boston City Council )
)
Defendants. )

CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT


1) On February 10, 1988 the Boston City Council, entered into a Consent to Entry of Final Judgment in the Open Meeting Law case of James Shannon v. Boston City Council, Suffolk Superior Court No. 87-5397.
2) The Consent reads:
“The Defendants, Boston City Council and City Councillors….admit the continuing jurisdiction of the Suffolk Superior Court as to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this action and hereby consent to the entry of Final Judgment in the form attached hereto.
In so consenting the Defendants have read and understand each of the numbered paragraphs in the Complaint and the Judgment. The Defendants admit the facts described in the Complaint. The Defendants waive the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants further understand that any violation of this judgment may result in them being adjudged in contempt of court. Assented to, waiving all rights to Appeal.” (Exhibit 1)


3) The Final Judgment reads
“It is Hereby Ordered and Adjudged that: 1. All future meetings of the Defendants as the Boston City Council and any committees thereof be held in accordance with the full provisions and spirit of G.L. c. 39, 32B relating to meetings of governmental bodies, the procedure for convening executive sessions, and the requirement that records be maintained as required thereunder” (Exhibit 1)

4) On March 27, 2006 Superior Court Judge Staffier Holtz found the City Council guilty of Open Meeting Law Violations in McCrea v. Flaherty and the Boston City Council 05-01798. On Appeal, the Boston City Council was still found guilty of violating the Open Meeting Law. Judge Holtz wrote:

“It is furter ORDERED that the Boston City Council is Enjoined as follows:
The Boston City Council and any committee thereof shall comply with the
Requirements of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. cc 39B in the future. This
shall include compliance with the requirements relating to executive
session, to wit:

No executive session shall be held until [Boston City Council] has first
convened in an open session for which notice has been given, a majority of
the members have voted to go into executive session and the vote of each
member is recorded on a roll call vote and entered into the minutes, the
presiding officer has cited the purposes for an executive session, and the
presiding officer has stated before the executive session if [the Boston City
Council] will reconvene after the executive session.” (Ex. 5)




STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) The Boston City Council has been found guilty of 11 counts of violating the Open Meeting Law by the Suffolk Superior Court in McCrea v. Flaherty and the Boston City Council, C.A 05-01798B
2) On appeal, the Appeals Court found the Boston City Council guilty on 1 count and remanded to the Superior Court the other 10 counts for fact finding. This case is still pending. Plaintiffs sent a settlement proposal to the defendants.
3) Subsequently, on August 6, 2008, the Boston City Council held a regular public meeting of the Boston City Council.
4) On August 15, 2008 Plaintiff Kevin McCrea received an e-mail from counsel for the Defendant Boston City Council, Mary Jo Harris, in which she states “The council met August 6 to consider the proposal, with me, in executive session and voted to reject it at that time.” (Exhibit 2)
5) City Council Meeting Minutes posted online do not reflect any Executive Session on that date.
6) Plaintiff McCrea went to the City Clerks office and spoke with Assistant City Clerk Alex Geourntas who provided a hardcopy of the minutes, which also include no indication that the City Council met in Executive Session. Mr. Geourntas assured Mr. McCrea that the minutes online are verbatim to the official minutes. (Exhibit 3)
7) While at Boston City Hall, Plaintiff McCrea checked the posting board on the first floor. On the posting board was an undated notice which states:
“Committee on Rules and Administration, which shall concern itself with the rules and administrative functions of the Council. The Committee shall meet in confidence to discuss matters in accordance with M.G.L. c. 39, s. 23B (the state Open Meeting Law). Adoption of the Rules of the City Council shall serve as an affirmative vote of the Council to convene the committee as the chair sees fit. The purpose of the committee’s meetings shall be to address such issues as are outlined in the Open Meeting Law. The Clerk, as Clerk of the Council, shall participate in committee meeting convened to address rules related or parliamentary issues at the request of the chair. Adoption of said rules shall also serve as notice of the several meetings of the Committee. Rule 1 of these rules shall govern the reconvening of the Council. The Clerk shall reproduce this section and post such notice appropriately in City Hall.” (Exhibit 4)

8) Plaintiff McCrea contacted City Council President Maureen Feeney’s office to bring attention to this notice which indicates that the committee can “convene…as the chair sees fit” with no date and time as required by MGL Chapter 39 section 23 B. He spoke with Justin Holmes of Councilor Feeney’s office many times over the course of at least a month asking that the notice be taken down. Mr. Holmes guessed that the notice might be left over from previous years.
9) On October 28, 2008 Plaintiff McCrea checked the notice board and said notice was still displayed. He met with Justin Holmes who indicated that Councilor Feeney could do nothing about it and that he should talk to the City Clerk about it.
10) Plaintiff Mr. McCrea also requested Councilor Sam Yoon’s office to have the notice taken down, and also asked Councilor John Tobin to take the notice down.
11) Plaintiff McCrea visited the City Clerk’s office after these meetings. He met with Darlene Bryant who indicated she had posted the notice subsequent to the first City Council Meeting of the year. The City Clerk was on vacation and was not available.
12) At this date, the notice is still posted.
13) On October 30, 2008 Defendant Boston City Council sent a Motion for Summary Judgment to Plaintiff Kevin McCrea in the McCrea v. Flaherty case, in which the Boston City Council admitted they violated the Open Meeting Law in the 10 remaining cases remanded to the Superior Court from the Appeals Court.

ARGUMENT
A. The Council Violated the Executive Session Provisions of the Open Meeting Law.
1) M.G.L. Chapter 39, Section 23B states:
“No executive session shall be held until the governmental body has first convened in an open session for which notice has been given, a majority of the members have voted to go into executive session and the vote of each member is recorded on a roll call vote and entered into the minutes, the presiding officer has cited the purpose for an executive session, and the presiding officer has stated before the executive session if the governmental body will reconvene after the executive session”.

The lawyer for the City Council informed Plaintiff Kevin McCrea that the City Council went into Executive Session on August 6, 2008 to discuss, of all things, their violations of the Open Meeting Law. However, the Boston City Council, according to its official minutes, did not go into executive session, did not record a roll call vote, and did not state the purpose of its executive session. This is a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

2. The Open Meeting Law further states “A governmental body shall maintain accurate records of its meetings, setting forth the date, time, place members present or absent and action taken at each meeting, including executive sessions.” On August 6, 2008 the Boston City Council went into Executive Session and did not record this for the public record. This is a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

B. The Council Has Violated and Continues to Violate the Notice Provision of the Open Meeting Law.

1) In regards to the posting of the Committee on Rules and Administration, there are multiple violations of the Open Meeting Law. The Open Meeting Law states “All meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public.” The Open Meeting Law states each “notice shall ….contain the date, time and place of such meeting.” This notice does not cite a date, time or place of any meetings, and indeed indicates that the meetings are confidential and closed, without claiming specific exemptions provided by the Law. Therefore the notice is in violation of the Open Meeting Law. Every meeting held pursuant to this notice was in violation of the Law. Every day that this notice was posted was a day in which a violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred.
2) The office of City Council President Maureen Feeney, who is by statute also the chair of the Committee on Rules, has told plaintiff Kevin McCrea that this posting is the responsibility of the City Clerk. However, the Open Meeting Law states “Such filing and posting shall be the responsibility of the officer calling such meeting.” Clearly the responsibility is with the City Council in regard to their meetings, not their Clerk.

C. The Council Is In Violation of Its Consent Agreement to Obey the Open Meeting Law on Penalty of Contempt Citation.

1 The Consent agreement specifically identifies “The Defendants, Boston City Council and City Councillors” clearly identifying that the City Council as a body is part of the consent agreement, not just the councilors individually. The Boston City Council as currently constituted is well aware of the Shannon decision, having spent well over $100,000 of taxpayer money over the last 3 years defending themselves in the McCrea v. Flaherty case. In her decision in that case Judge Staffier-Holtz wrote: “This Court finds that it is likely that the Council will continue to act in contravention of the Open Meeting Law in the future and injunctive relief is therefore appropriate.” On May 1, 2008 Judge Granger alluded to the Shannon Case with the opening line of the decision of the Appeals Court in McCrea v. Flaherty case “The city council of Boston finds itself, not for the first time, on the losing end of a determination that it has improperly excluded the public from its deliberations.” The Boston City Council, despite numerous adjudicated violations of the Open Meeting Law, despite warning by the courts and the District Attorney not to exclude the public, and despite plaintiff’s repeated request to take down a notice clearly in violation of the Open Meeting Law, continue to refuse to comply with the straightforward requirements of the Law. For these willful violations of the Open Meeting Law, they should be held in contempt as they agreed to in the Shannon Consent agreement.

PRAYER FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS
1) From Rule 65.3.c.5 a prayer for the issuance of a Summons is requested within 10 days.
2) Summons. The summons shall issue only on a judge's order and shall direct the parties to appear before the court not later than ten days thereafter for the purpose or purposes specifically stated therein of: scheduling a trial, considering whether the filing of an answer is necessary, holding a hearing on the merits of the complaint, or considering such other matters or performing such other acts as the court may deem appropriate.
3) The Open Meeting Law requires that a hearing be held within 10 days, with regard to the “speediest possible determination of the cause”. Defendant Boston City Council was able to delay both the Shannon and the McCrea case for years, and Plaintiff requests this Court hold a quick and speedy hearing to deter this tact. Justice delayed is justice denied.

REMEDY

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully request that this Honorable Court:

1) Find the City Council and its members in contempt of court for each violation of the Open Meeting Law.
2) Levy appropriate damages in accordance with the Open Meeting Law guidelines.
3) Administer appropriate injunctive relief.
4) Consider appointing a special master to oversee the actions of the Boston City Council, or order it to convene a Sunshine Commission similar to the one employed by the City of San Francisco to insure that citizens are not excluded from the actions of their government.





Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff pro se


________________________________________________________________
Kevin McCrea, 218 West Springfield Street, Boston, MA 02118 617-267-2453

Happy Thanksgiving!

Clara and I are off to visit family out of state, we wish everyone a healthy, safe, happy and prosperous Thanksgiving.

This country is an amazing place to live, with some of the greatest freedoms in the world. Our trip around the planet only made us appreciate the USA, and what it stands for even more.

I give thanks for living in a place where I can speak my mind, openly and honestly, without too much oppression from the government.

We also lived for a year with less than 8 cubic feet of stuff, and were perfectly happy. (Well, Clara might have liked some more clothes, shoes, and perfumes) Think about so many who don't have anywhere near as much as we do here in America, and give thanks for that as well.

Peace,
Kevin

US Attorney reaches out to Black Ministerial Alliance

The US attorney handling the corruption probe into City Hall and the State House has reached out to the Black Ministerial Alliance. Apparently, he wants to reach out to the black community to assure them that he is not targeting only black officials in his investigations.

Shedding more light on what is going on with Licensing Board, Wilkerson, Feeney, etc.

So I did a Public Records Request on the infamous meeting at the State House where Wilkerson, Feeney, Murray, etc. got together to decide how raises, liquor licenses, etc. are handed out.

On August 16, 2007 on Maureen Feeney's Schedule it has:

12:00 pm - 12:30 pm TIME FOR CAKE !!!!!!

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 1 pm-Mtg @State House(rm 332) RE: licenses (Petrucelli, Morrissey, Wilkerson, & Pokaski) (8/13 PAM)


A couple interesting things, first of all Sen. President Murray is not mentioned although it seems she was there according to the FBI documents. It certainly shows that Maureen knows why she was going to the meeting and who was going to be there.

If the Mayor and City Council were serious about cleaning up what is going on at City Hall they could call for hearings and do some investigation. I am working full time as a contractor, with limited time to look into this stuff and I seem to be finding out more than these 'see no evil, hear no evil' solons.

If I was at City Hall I would be doing some serious investigation using all the legal powers available to look into what is going on. The Herald today has an article about how a lawyer who works for the city was the named attorney representing a licensing case for a South Boston bar.

It is such a corrupt, insiders game down there.

More later, but I have to be at work at 7:30 am.

Tonight on TV, Chuck Turner and then me, talking about Corruption at City Hall

On BNN tonight, Joe Heisler will be hosting his weekly show "Talk of the Neighborhoods" a poltical and local news show about what is going on in Boston.

At 7 pm he plans on having Chuck Turner on for 1/2 an hour, then at 7:30 he is having me on as a guest talking about the various corruptions going on in Boston and in particular about City Hall.

Tune in, and think about calling in with any questions, thoughts, or ideas.

City giving away even more Public Parkland

Apparently, City Hall has begun talking to Emanual College about taking over
Roberte Clemente Park in the Fenway. Once again they will claim that the City doesn't have any money to maintain the park, how the City doesn't have any money, etc.

What this allows is Emanual to get to take over Public Space, put in their own rules and regulations and run the park under their control. What the public gets is some likely improved amenities that they may or may not get to use, and if they do get to use them it will be at prescribed places and times.

Again, I'm philosophically opposed to handing over public spaces to private interests.

The City has more than enough money for Parks, if they would actually trim all the waste in the government, stop giving away money to connected interests, and get their pensions, etc. under control. They could also stop giving their assets away for free, such as City Hall Plaza.

One more place in Boston that Free Speech will be banned by Mike Ross, Tom Menino and crew. Sam Adams is rolling over.

Running for Mayor, Running for Councilor?

I was out and about in the neighborhoods this weekend taking the pulse of the City.

A Ron Forte (sp?) a Republican from Dorchester I believe who works for the MBTA has been talking to people about supporting his run for Mayor.

People have been saying to me "Don't you live in Chuck Turner's District?" The answer is yes, although I live in the South End I am on the very edge of Chuck Turner's District, I literally think if I lived on the other side of the street I would be in Councilor Linehan's District.

Since the City Council seems to be so keen on cleaning up City Hall this morning according to the papers, if they remove Chuck (which I don't think they should do, whether they have the ability or not, people are innocent until proven guilty, etc.) maybe they could appoint me in his place. I could vow to continue rooting out all the illegal activity down there!

Don't forget the council just pleaded guilty last Monday to knowingly excluding the public from the decision making process not once, not twice, but 10 times!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think they are going to meet to resign en masse, do you?

Interesting article about renovating NYC's Washington Park

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/nyregion/thecity/23park.html?hp

Interesting article about Washington Park, which for anyone who has been there knows is a great hangout place and people watching paradise.

Notice that NYC didn't claim that they don't have any money, and the amount of the renovation is clearly stated in the article. They also didn't need to appoint a Conservancy to get the renovation done.

Another interesting similarity is the influence of NYU on the Park. It would seem that our Suffolk University (Mike Ross's law school) might have designs on the Common as well.

I would hate to think that we are throwing in the towel to Public ownership and management of our parks when our arch rival New York City knows how to run a Parks Department and City Budget.

I walked through the Park today, and yes there is some trash, and some rough edges, especially along Boylston Street, but overall it is a truly wonderful oasis in the City.

Thoughts on Chuck Turner and the meaning of Corruption

As my wife said about the Chuck Turner news yesterday: Sad. Read at: http://www.universalhub.com/images/2008/turneraffidavit.pdf

However, if one takes the time to read the FBI affidavit you can see that Chuck was offered more money by the CW-cooperating witness, who is reported to be Ron Wilburn. The CW offered to have a fundraiser for Chuck, and offered more money if Chuck would meet him later. It appears Chuck lost his phone number, and never followed up on either offer.
If Chuck was really out to shake people down and get money, this would have been too easy. But, he is alleged to have just taken one golden handshake.

This FBI document is no where near as damaging as the Dianne Wilkerson one, which reads like a roadmap of how you get things done in Boston. You get your claws into a lower level politician like Diane, they call up Tom Menino, who if he so deigns gives you the go ahead to talk to Michael Kineavy who is the one that gets things done at City Hall for the Mayor. Then everyone else falls in line, different people get their chits, and legislation gets discussed in closed meetings like the one with Maureen Feeney, Licensing Board member Polaski, Sen. Wilkerson, and Sen. President Murray. Finally, it gets rubber stamped in public meetings (or maybe not even that according to the FBI's report on the Licensing Board) and the public is none the wiser.

I've sent a Public Records Request to see the meeting schedule for that Feeney, Murray meeting, can't wait to see what I get.

Chuck Turner, it appears, may have just been sloppy in the way he took money, and it seems what they will really get him on is denying that it happened. Just like Clinton, it is not the act it is the cover up that gets you in trouble. If he had just taken the $1000 put it down on his taxes as a consulting fee, and told the Feds he had taken the money from Wilburn, he would be pretty clear now.

What is the meaning of Corruption?

What Chuck allegedly did is wrong. But, is it more wrong than Michael Flaherty actively working for a lawfirm that handles zoning matters in the City of Boston while he sits on the Boston City Council? Is it more wrong than Boston Mayor Tom Menino putting a level 4 Biolab in the heart of Boston? Menino has taken thousands of campaign funds over the years from Walsh Construction and their associates and family, and has received much help from the BU people who are going to profit from this. He has surely been able to legally "take his wife to dinner" more than once on those thousands of contributed funds and call it a campaign expense. Was there Quid Pro Quo there, which could put tens of thousands of people at risk for their lives? Did the Citizens of Boston receive fair and honest service from their Mayor on this project, did he properly protect them? It is a grayer area, harder to prove than a case over a thousand bucks with a gray photo, but I would argue much more important in the grand scheme of things. I hope the FBI doesn't just investigate the low hanging rotten fruit, when they should look at the roots of this corrupt tree which produces such flowers.

The saddest thing about this to me is Chuck's statement about 90 percent of the politicians being corrupt. If he sees and knows about corruption he should speak out about it, and should have spoken out about it. To not speak out is to be complicit, which is one of my major complaints about our elected officials.

As the saying goes, all that is required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. I think Chuck was one of the good people, who cared and worked hard for his constituents, but when he turned a blind eye to what was happening in front of him and refused to speak out about it, it left him vulnerable to these temptations. Dianne Wilkerson on the other hand, is someone that I think Chuck should have been speaking out about.

I wish Chuck the best, and I hope he will do the right thing and speak out about the corruption that he has seen, be honest about what he did, and let the people judge him accordingly.

A black candidate for City Council at large

You should hear shortly the announcement of a prominent member of Boston's black community who knows all about the failings of the BRA and believes that the citizens should have control over planning and zoning is planning to run for City Council at large.

With Felix Jr running, this gentleman and others it is shaping up to be an interesting race, with many from the "new Boston" as they say, stepping up.

Boston Common going Private?

I've been following up on my Monday Blog about the Boston City Council wanting to create a Conservancy to manage or oversee the Boston Common. Apparently the blog made quite the impact and numerous calls were made to City Hall and the Globe wrote an article about it. Funny how the news cycle works in Boston. The meeting happens last week and the press doesn't write about it, I find out about what they are planning, blog about it, and then the Globe writes a weak article that doesn't ask the tough questions.

Background: The City Council special committee on the Common made up of Ross, Lamattina, and Linehan has been meeting for a year to discuss ways to make the Boston Common better. They have held some public forums to get input
(such as at Suffolk University) from the Public, and they have roadtripped to New York to look at some Parks there. All of this is good.

They then put together a draft report on suggestions for the Common and presented it at a meeting last week. They gave out the draft to people in the room (since it was a public meeting) and discussed revisions to the draft in a public forum. Again, all of this is good.

Now the bad stuff happens. In that draft report they discuss creating a conservancy, which is a private entity, to raise funds and help manage the Park. It is my understanding (but I could be wrong) that the idea of a Conservancy was never discussed at the public forums. The next thing was they asked people at that meeting not to show the draft report to anyone!! (not very transparent!)

I called my South End councilor Linehan to get some answers and to get a copy of the draft report. They said they didn't have it and referred me to Mike Ross's office.

I spoke to Mike Ross's office and they refused to provide me with a copy of the draft report, saying that it was only a draft and that it is going to be changed, and alluded to the fact that I could make a Public Records request for it if I wanted it. They asked me why I wanted it, and I said to see what you are planning to give comment perhaps.

I then asked what the process would be. They responded that they would come up with a new draft that Mike Ross would approve. They MIGHT have another working session, or they might not, and then the report would be presented to the full Boston City Council in a couple weeks to be voted on. I asked "where will the public be able to see what you are proposing for the Boston Common before you vote on it?" The answer, of course, is that we might not be able to. Again, not very transparent.

To me the process should be: hold hearings and gain input as they did, then put together a draft proposal, have another hearing, post the proposal on the City website to get input from ALL the citizens, then put together a final draft, and notice the public about when the public discussion and vote will take place at the City Council. Pretty simple it seems to me, why not get the public input on the BOSTON COMMON???

SHOW ME THE MONEY

Finally, I got down to the nitty gritty, which is the money part, what the really important decisions are about. In the Globe article Councilor Linehan was quoted as saying "The park needs some help right now; financially it needs more money". Councilor Ross was quoted as saying they " want to make the Common a better place that looks to private dollars instead of nonexistent public dollars."

So I asked Councilor Ross's office some questions about money:

Q: How much do we spend on the Boston Common now?
A: We don't have that information

Q: How much do we need to spend to maintain it properly?
A: We don't have that information

Q: How much will the proposed improvements cost?
A: We don't have that information

They then told me about the tough times we are in, and how the Parks Department budget has been cut. I said, "really, are you sure about that?" They checked the numbers and sure enough the Parks Department budget had not been cut but had been increased this year. I appreciate them taking the time to check their facts, but they shouldn't just blurt out that a budget has been cut when it hasn't.

I also brought up the fact that just this summer Councilor Ross and Councilor Murphy held a hearing where Councilor Murphy explained that the city had 10 to 25 million dollars left over from last years budget. Councilor Ross thanked him for the information and they decided to use that money to give all the Councilor's staff raises. This video is available on the City of Boston website. Maybe some of that money could have gone to make Boston Common nicer? And what are we doing with all that left over money? I asked Councilor Flaherty that at his Kitchen Table talk here in the South End but he didn't have an answer for that either.

I think if I was doing a year long research project into fixing up the Boston Common, I would find out how much we spend on that Park, and how much the professionals, the Boston Parks Department, think they would need to maintain it in better conditions. Especially before I make public statements to the press about needing more money and "nonexistent" public funds. But that's just me, I'm in business for myself and I look at the bottom line.


Why Conservancy's are a BAD idea
Number one is that this is Public space, owned by the people, of the people and for the people. It is ridiculous to think that we have maintained this park by the citizens for 400 or so years, and now we need to get private oversight involved.

We already have a friends of the Public Gardens and the Boston Common, they are free to raise money and do good things for the parks. There is no reason that they can't continue to do this and raise more private money to help, if possible.

What a Conservancy allows is private control over a public body. For example what happened at the Greenway. They set up that Conservancy supposedly to handle the expense of maintaining the Rose Kennedy Greenway. The Conservancy said they would handle the expenses, but then they said they couldn't raise enough money, but they had already been given control. So the Conservancy goes back to the City and the Legislature who gives them money to run and maintain the park. Since they are a private agency they are not governed by public laws about transparency, accountability, etc. It is a great place for cronyism, nepotism and giving velvet handshake jobs to political friends without any public oversight.

It also allows that private entity to set the rules for the park. Such as no protests, no marches, no silent raves on the Common (as my clients 17 year old daughter pointed out), no Freedom of Speech, no pot rallies, and certainly no homeless people using it as a shelter of last resort.

If they do set up a Conservancy, there needs to be a line in the agreement that says
"This Boston Common Conservancy may NEVER receive one penny of public funds from the City, State or Federal Governments" If it doesn't include that line, then we are giving away public funds to a private entity with no oversight of how that money is spent.


Frankly, hasn't our government admitted failure when they say they are not capable of taking care of the most important Park in the City of Boston?

We blow money on new City Hall studies, bonuses for City Council Staff, signs with the Mayors name on them all over the City, low brow reports on the Open Meeting Law, give away property for free to the BRA, but we can't maintain the Boston Common?

I suggest Mike Ross work harder on getting the BRA to give the City back the money they get for letting the Red Sox close off the streets during game days. The BRA promised Mike and the Council that the City would get that money but we don't. Mike was hopping mad (as he should have been) when they reneged on that deal. Where is that money now?

Can't Trust the Mayor or the BRA

I read the Herald article today about how Ft. Point is mad at the Mayor and the BRA for reneging on promises made to them.

See at: http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1133157

My first thought is: "I told you so."

When I was running for City Council at Large I met with the neighborhood group there and went to a couple meetings where they were discussing the BRA plan for their neighborhood. A number of people were concerned about all the building being planned that exceeded the zoning limits, etc., etc. but they were promised certain things to make up for that.

I told them how to deal with the BRA and the Mayor, how you can not take them at their word, and told them to absolutely get anything they promise in writing. Some people were very interested in addressing the issues in the way that I described (part of my advice was to let them know: don't tell them I am helping you!). But other people said "no, we can't be radical, the BRA has been very responsive and they seem to really care about our needs." I wonder if those people are happy now with what they are getting from the ninth floor at City Hall.

They are very good about seeming to care, right up to the point they approve a giant tower next to you. As I have said all along, we need citizen control over the planning and development of our city. That was in essence what the revolutionary war was all about. Taxation without representation. Well the BRA sets planning policy and tax policy for large sections of the City and the citizens have no input.

Not a very democratic government if you ask me.

But, Freedom of Speech in City Hall!

I was speaking with Councilor Ross's office today and I asked about the comments I have read in the paper about City Councilor's afraid to talk to each other in the halls.

That seemed extremely disengenuous if not an outright lie, especially since I see them talking to each other all the time. It seemed particularly odd when I read about Mike Ross being the next Council President. How could he line up the votes, and how could all the councilors know where each other stood unless they spoke to each other.

Faced with this question, Councilor Ross's office admitted that He is NOT afraid to talk to other Councilor's in the Hall's and that actually he and Murphy had gotten together and talked about who would be Council President.

It must feel good that the Councilor's now feel they can talk to each other in the halls again.

They also wanted to let me know that "Over Councilor's Ross's Dead Body he would not turn the Boston Common over to private interests". More later....

No Freedom of Speech on Boston Common?

The Boston City Council is exploring the option of taking the Boston Common-THE BOSTON COMMON!!!!! and turning it over to a Conservancy. In other words giving control of this, perhaps the most historic and important public park in the country, over to a private group to control. This is what was done with Post Office Square and the Greenway.

Just try and carry a board that says "No more War", or "City Hall is Dirty" in those public spaces, or get a permit to have a peace rally, or call for citizens rights.

Mike Ross, Mr. Lamattina and Mr. Linehan held a get together on this last week. Since all three of these guys are close to the Mayor you can be pretty sure that the Mayor is aware of this, if not behind it.

The assault on Freedom of Speech, and the rights of the citizens to own and control their own property in this country is very troubling.

Please call your city councilors and the Mayor and let them know where you stand on this. 617-635-4000.

DA following up on Open Meeting Law violation at Boston Licensing Board

I am happy to report that the District Attorney is following up on my inquiry about whether an Open Meeting Law violation occurred in granting the Deja Vu liquor license that Sen. Wilkerson was so involved with.

They have requested a number of items related to this case from Chairman Pokaski. It will be interesting to see what they find. What I have discovered in my limited time looking into this is:

1) The Board does not keep minutes of its meetings, they keep audio recordings which are available for $15 and a blank tape. This is against best practices as described by the Attorney General's office at best, and could be a violation itself.

2) The Board told me they don't keep a copy of the license, it is just given to the recipient. This seems quite odd to me, and bears further investigation.

If I was the Mayor or a City Councilor, I know I would be very interested to know how liquor licenses are distributed in my city or district. Instead, we have an acute lack of interest or denial from our public officials who claim to be interested in transparency. Certainly a liquor license in a neighborhood is a big quality of life issue, and you would think they would be concerned with non transparent business going on right inside their own building.

But, to my knowledge none of them have asked for an investigation let alone done their own inquiry into what is going on. The Mayor's spokesman has even told me the Mayor has nothing to do with the licensing board. Well, maybe he should care a bit more about liquor licenses in the City. It is more likely the Mayor knows everything about what is going on with liquor licenses in the City and he was doing some good old fashioned back room horse trading with Senator Wilkerson, whom he endorsed and sent out voicemails on her behalf not two months ago.

City Council admits Guilt-see it in Court Monday

Today is November 15th, the date that Summary Judgments are due in the McCrea v. Flaherty and Boston City Council case. Since today is a weekend, the papers will be filed Monday in Suffolk Superior Court where the public can view the Boston City Councils documents where they admit guilt in 10 more instances of breaking the Open Meeting Law.

For those lawyers and policy wonks out there, you may want to read over their documents where even at this late stage they are still trying to carve out a legal niche for themselves to meet in groups of six to discuss policy matters out of the public's view.

Transparency is still a foreign word to our government here in Boston. The Governor's new Ethics Panel is trying to decide whether to meet in public or private.

It certainly seems to me to be important for this group to meet in public so that the citizens and other interested legislators can give their valuable input. It is hard to believe they are serious about ethics reform if they meet in the dark.

A post about comments

Recently, unfortunately, I have had to take the step of moderating comments something I haven't done in the four years or so I have had this blog.

The reason for this is that some anonymous people were posting comments that were worthy of a third grade playground bully. I have no problem with people questioning my thoughts, opinions or observations. But when people are too cowardly to post their name, and devolve into name calling about my wife, then that privilege gets revoked.



I will publish all comments that are respectful and intelligent in nature.

Thanks for reading,
Kevin

Big Game Today----Wabash Depauw

The undefeated and 3rd ranked in Division 3 Wabash little Giants are taking on our arch rival Depauw University today. We are on a roll, winning last week 63-0! The live telecast is at Clery's here in the South End, where we hope to be joined by my old English professor at Wabash Bert Stern.

Come and Enjoy the beatdown as we bring back the Monon Bell to its rightful place!

How things work in Boston and the State House

After reading the Wilkerson affidavit, as I reported earlier I went and asked the licensing board for some information. There they told me that there was an opening and I asked how do I apply. They sent me to the State House where Governor Patrick's people told me Susan Iannella, who was currently on the state Alchohol Commission, the ABCC, had already been appointed. It would seem to be a demotion to move from the State Board to the City Board, but apparently the $85,000 a year salary to go to 3 meetings a week was good enticement.

I took two actions. The first was to send a public records request to Governor Patrick to see what the qualifications for the post are, where the job had been posted, who he interviewed, and a copy of Susan Iannella's resume. The second was to quickly call Treasurer Cahill's office to apply for the soon to be vacant ABCC job. I figured I must have a chance at that one since it hasn't even been announced that Susan Iannella was leaving yet.

I spoke to a nice woman, Amy Fagerlund in the Treasurer's office who was a bit surprised at my call, saying that Mrs. Iannella hadn't even left yet and they didn't have any announcements about the job. She said she was quite busy and that she would call me the next day with the job requirements. A week later I hadn't heard back from her, so I called and left a message asking for some follow up. Last Friday she called and let me know that they already had someone in mind for the job so it wasn't necessary for me to submit my resume. I asked how I could be considered for the next opening, and she said she would send me an email that I could respond to with my resume. I haven't seen that email yet.

Today I got my response back from Governor Patrick. First, his Counsel explained how the Governor is exempt from the public records law but that he would fulfill most of my request. He let me know that they didn't post anywhere that there was an opening on the Boston Licensing Board, and that they didn't interview anyone, they just appointed Mrs. Iannella. Her resume shows work experience as a consultant and as a Real Estate Broker and Republican National Committee delegate, before being appointed to the State Licensing Board.

I can't wait to see who the person Treasurer Cahill already had in mind for the ABCC position is. Why do a nationwide let alone a statewide search, let alone a job posting when there are so many qualified political family members around?

Some more BS on the way to the Courthouse....

On my way to the Courthouse today for a contempt hearing against the Boston City Council, I stopped by City Hall to see if they took down the meeting posting I have been asking them to take down for a few months. They didn't do it when I asked, nicely, of Feeney, Yoon and Tobin, but file a Motion for Contempt and they jump into action! The meeting notice had been taken town and replaced with another notice that doesn't have a date, place or time and as such is as dubious as the first.

I went to the City Clerk's office to get a copy of the notice. It is always so funny to me how the hired help is so friendly and incredulous about what is going on.

KM: "hi I'd like to get a copy of a meeting notice posted downstairs"

Clerks: "oh you don't need a copy, they are posted online"

KM: "This one isn't"

Clerks "Really?? They are supposed to be. All the postings are online and they tell you the date and time of the meeting"

KM: "Yes, I know they should. But, this one doesn't"

So, they were nice enough to give me a copy of the notice, which contrary to what even the lowly clerks know should be true, ISN'T.

Then I spoke with Rosaria Salerno, who pleasantly told me that "there was no need for that posting to be there".

So, to sum up. Kevin asks nicely for a posting to come down. The City Council refuses until I file a motion for contempt. As soon as I file the motion for contempt, they take the notice down, put up a streamlined version and then the Clerk tells me it doesn't need to be there.

In these belt tightening times, you would think they would have better things to do then put up notices that don't need to be there (and aren't on the website, per city council rules).

BUT, this posting is about the BS on the way to the courthouse...., down one floor at the Mayor's office.

I went to the Mayor's office to ask what he was doing about the apparent violations at the Boston Licensing Board. I was referred to his press office where a nice young man explained to me that he had read the indictment against Dianne Wilkerson, but that the indictment is only about what "Dianne says happened" and is not necessarily true". I tried to point out that the indictment is not about what Dianne says happened, but what the FBI says happened but that seemed to go over his head. I asked whether the Mayor was concerned that the Licensing Board was not conducting business in the proper manner and he assured me that the Licensing Board follows a strenuous process for approving applications. He also let me know, that it is the Governors responsibility for the Board and that the Mayor has nothing to do with it, and hence is not doing any investigations or follow up of the Licensing Board.

He summed up by saying "The Mayor has no influence on the Licensing Board".

Now if you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

Election Day report and shenanigans

I voted for Obama, Chang-Diaz and a couple of Iannella's today. I saw huge lines in the morning at 3 polling places.

However, I also saw the continued lack of obeying and enforcement of election law. Supporters and signs must be 150 feet from the entrance of polling locations and signs are not supposed to be attached to public property. However, everyone still does out, Obama signs, no on 2 signs, etc. are right outside polling locations as are their supporters.

The city even sent out election crews this year to paint white lines 150 feet away from the polling locations so people would know where they could stand and support their candidate. However, the woman in charge of my polling location was never informed of this by the election department. She was thankful when I pointed them out to her.

We need better communication and oversight.

But, everyone seemed very pleasant even with the crush of the crowds, I hope everything goes swimmingly.

The rumor is that Dianne Wilkerson will take whatever number of votes she gets today and use that as an excuse to stay on as Senator for the rest of her term. The argument will be that "X number of people in my district voted for me, and I can't leave them without representation."

Shout out to my mom!

My mother worked hard this weekend campaigning for Barack Obama and other democratic candidates in NH. She drove up from MA with other volunteers and canvassed some rural areas.

It was a tough but worthwhile effort she reported. At one point, she even met with a gentleman who had lost a son in Iraq. He told her that he comes from a military family, and that he thinks McCain will bring the troops home with honor.

She said that people were very polite and appreciative, even when letting her know they were voting for others.

Go Mom and Go Obama!

Boston is a Tiny Town

My wife and I were set to meet with a friend last night, and on the way I convinced her to let me stop at Kinko's to make some copies (one thing about lawsuits is the endless amount of paperwork, in at least triplicate).

I was in Kinko's all alone as my beautiful bride was parking, when who walks in but one of the subjects of the lawsuit I was making copies for, a Boston City Councilor. We exchanged pleasantries and I went back to copying. The Councilor needed to fax something off, and was gone in a couple minutes saying 'good evening' on his way out.

As I was getting ready to leave I noticed a wallet had been left on the counter by the Councilor. (We have all done it) I immediately went outside and started yelling for the Councilor to no avail. I told the clerk at the desk that if the Councilor came back to let him know I had it, and I called Shirley Kressel up and got two phone numbers she had for him, but both were office numbers with answering machines. Later, I called information and got another answering machine at the Councilors listed number. I even tried calling an old cell number of John Connolly I had, to see if he might have the number, also to no avail. When we got home, it turns out he had re-traced his steps to Kinko's and had called my answering machine, and said to reach him at City Hall tomorrow.

What a quandary we had before he called. Do I even look in the wallet to see if there is a phone number or other contact information? I am involved in a lawsuit with the gentleman, what if somehow I saw some privileged information. Plus,there are all sorts of subpoena's (and marked bills according to the FBI) flying around City Hall which is none of my business. So, I decided the correct thing to do was not even to open it up.

I had joked with Clara as we drove to our friends that I felt like Frodo carrying the ring, and in her best Sam-wise way she told me to give her the wallet, but I insisted that I must carry the burden and do the right thing! So, it is off to City Hall later today.

Letter to District Attorney asking him to investigate the Boston Licensing Board

Kevin McCrea
218 West Springfield Street
Boston, MA 02118
617-267-2453
Bigracing@hotmail.com

October 31, 2008

John Zanini
Assistant District Attorney
1 Bullfinch Place
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Violation of Open Meeting Law by Boston Licensing Board

Dear Mr. Zanini:

This letter is a request that you investigate a possible violation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.

As per our conversation two days ago, I am asking you to investigate a possible violation of the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. 39 chapter 23 B. It appears from the indictment in the US v. Dianne Wilkerson case that on August 15, 2007 a public meeting was held in which approval for a beer and wine license for the Déjà vu restaurant was not on the docket or meeting agenda, and was not publicly addressed. But, the beer and wine license which is supposed to be reviewed in public was apparently approved by the Boston Licensing Board on that day.

You have indicated that you have read the indictment, and so I will not forward it to you. The Boston Licensing Board can be found in Room 809 at Boston City Hall.

If you need or require anything further to do your investigation, please contact me at once. As you know, the Massachusetts General Laws consider Open Meetings a priority and have a provision that the Courts hold a hearing on any proposed violation within 10 days. I look forward to your timely inquiry.

Thank you for investigating this matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin McCrea

Councilor Feeney puts out statement about Open Meeting Law

Statement from the Office of Council President Feeney



Boston—The office of Council President Maureen E. Feeney released the following statement today on behalf of the Boston City Council.



“In an attempt to bring resolution to the Open Meeting Law case, the Council has submitted a motion to the plaintiffs accepting the findings of the Appeals Court. The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to the Council's motion and all will be filed with the Superior Court. Resolution is in the best interest of the Council, its constituents and the plaintiffs, but it is ultimately the Court that will rule on the motion and decide the outcome. The Council understands its obligations under the Open Meeting Law. It remains committed to transparency as a practice of good government and will continue to conduct its business accordingly.”


Let's break this down sentence by sentence:

1) The office of Council President Maureen E. Feeney released the following statement today on behalf of the Boston City Council. Did she confer with the other members of the Boston City Council before putting this out? It certainly wasn't a posted meeting, perhaps another violation of the Open Meeting Law, in some sort of serial fashion? However, I give her the benefit of the doubt that as Council President she may speak on behalf of the council.

2) “In an attempt to bring resolution to the Open Meeting Law case, the Council has submitted a motion to the plaintiffs accepting the findings of the Appeals Court. This isn't true, the City Council went to the Appeals court saying they didn't get a chance to present evidence despite being the moving party. The City Council didn't present any further evidence to us. In fact, the City Council in the 11th hour has brought up 4 additional meetings that neither the Appeals Court nor the Superior Court addressed in their decisions. This statement by Feeney is thus patently false.

3) The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to the Council's motion and all will be filed with the Superior Court. Correct

4)Resolution is in the best interest of the Council, its constituents and the plaintiffs, but it is ultimately the Court that will rule on the motion and decide the outcome. The court WILL rule on the motion and decide its outcome. I don't like her speaking for me about what is best for the plaintiffs, and it is odd for the Council to be speaking of resolution after spending around $200,000 of taxpayer money on O.M.L. issues when they could have sat down with us three plaintiffs years ago to resolve these issues as we have offered many times. Or, they could have saved money by just paying the $11,000 fine which they will probably still have to pay.

5)The Council understands its obligations under the Open Meeting Law. If the Council understands its obligations why did they just send letters off to the DA the AG and others asking for clarification of the Law? Why did they pay Paul Walkowski tens of thousands of dollars to write up a report about the Open Meeting Law? And indeed, if they understand their obligations, why did they just admit guilt to 10 more violations of the Open Meeting Law?

6) It remains committed to transparency as a practice of good government and will continue to conduct its business accordingly.” If they are committed to transparency why is there a notice at City Hall saying the Rules Committee will meet in confidence, whenever and wherever they want without dates, times or places to discuss the Open Meeting Law? I have asked them to take it down or explain its purpose but no one has an answer. Why did they just send the Walkowski Report off for comment to the DA and AG which recommends that the council seek to exclude itself from the Open Meeting Law?

The fact is that the Council still does not seem to want to do all of their business in public. I have been super busy this week, or I would have filed yet another motion of more transgressions of the Open Meeting Law by the City Council as I told Justin Holmes from Councilor Feeney's office. The public this week was treated to the FBI indictment of Senator Wilkerson which shows how liquor licenses and land deals are done in Boston, in back room deals by "smoke and mirrors" as Dianne described it. That happens in Room 809 at Boston City Hall.

I have asked the City Council to make a firm commitment to Transparency by adopting a Sunshine Commission similar to the one that San Francisco has, but they refuse to even entertain the notion. It is actions like these which make the public wonder how much they are getting the shaft in these back room deals.

Postscript: The Boston Herald called me twice this afternoon trying to get a copy of the Council's Motion for Summary Judgment. I told the reporter I would have to confer with my co-plaintiffs first as a courtesy. The reporter called back and said that Maureen Feeney's office said my blog was incorrect, and accused me of not being transparent for not releasing the motion! I told her that she should ask the council for the motion, it is their motion, but she explained that she was refered to counsel for the council and just got an answering machine. I called Councilor Feeney's office to ask what was transcribed wrong on my blog, but they wouldn't answer the question and also referred me to their counsel and I also got an answering machine.
It was quite odd having the Herald be almost belligerent with me, at one point saying "I gave you an hour to confer with your co-plaintiffs, I have a deadline" as if I owed her anything????? Then accusing me of not being transparent? Not a great way to ask for information I'd say. I told her I'm running a business, and I'm just a citizen, I have people to pay on Friday at pay time, and they are my priority not some unknown reporter. I'm not the one getting paid to do the public's business, and my co-plaintiffs have work as well.
I have nothing but respect for the fourth estate, and the Herald, but if you want to get a story, get the whole story and do research don't badger people into sensationalist stuff.

PPS. If anyone can tell me how to post a PDF on this blog I would appreciate it!

Boston City Council pleads Guilty to the remaining counts in McCrea v. Flaherty

We received a motion for Summary Judgment today from the Boston City Council in which they plead guilty to the 10 remaining counts of the McCrea v. Flaherty and Boston City Council case. They were previously found guilty by the Superior Court on 11 Counts. The City Council appealed that decision to the Appeals Court where they argued that they weren't given enough chance to present factual evidence. The appeals court found them guilty on 1 count and remanded the other 10 back to the Superior Court. Now, 6 months later under a court deadline they have refused to turn over any further factual evidence, and have just moved for the Court to find them in violation for the remaining 10 Counts of illegally meeting with the BRA and others in violation of the Open Meeting Law.

They have spent somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 plus on this, and the clock is still ticking with their outside lawyers.

A transcription of some of the PDF they sent is here:

Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

Pursuant to MassRuleCP. 56, the defendants, Boston City Council,hereby move the court to enter judgment as follows:

1) Against the Defendants, inasmuch as the Complaint, as amended, alleges violation of the Open Meeting Law on 9 specific occasions June 3, 2003....

2) Against the Defendants in regard to notice provisions in regard to a council session of December 15, 2004;

Open Meeting Law Violation ???

I called the District Attorney's office today and spoke with the gentleman in charge of ethics and Open Meeting Law violations. Of course he had read the FBI indictment of Wilkerson. So I asked,"did you notice any Open Meeting Law violations?" and he said "you mean at the Licensing Board?"

Hopefully we will have the DA working on some of these cases soon, as the Feds are not interested in State Open Meeting Laws.

It is fascinating to read the FBI papers, it puts in black and white what we all suspected or knew: everything gets done in Boston behind closed doors out of the public view. That is why I have worked so hard for so long to try and make our government more transparent, because it is the common everyday people that are getting the shaft from our elected officials.

Question everything and everyone !

My day at City Hall and the State House--Susan Iannela won the nationwide search for the Boston Licensing Board

I read the FBI indictment of Dianne Wilkerson which shows how the Mayor, the City Council, the legislature, the BRA, the licensing board, etc. do business out of the public eye with "smoke and mirrors" as Diane describes it.

So, I decided to go pay my taxes at City Hall and ask some questions of my government.

I first went to the large gentleman on the 3rd floor reception desk and asked "Where do I go to payoff someone to get a liquor license?" He replied without moving, "Room 809". Who knew it was so easy, I guess you just have to ask!

I first went to pay my taxes, giving the city $7000 or so of my money. I don't think I gave them any money that the FBI had written down the serial numbers of.

Then I went down to the postings board for City meetings. I have been dealing with City Council President Feeney's office for around 3 weeks asking them to take down a sign that says that the Rules Committee will meet whenever and wherever they want. My feeling is that posting is a violation of the Open Meeting Law and I had asked Justin Holmes in her office to take it down. When I went downstairs to the first floor the posting was still there.

I went up to the fifth floor and asked to speak with Mr. Holmes. We had never met, and he was very pleasant. He apologized for not sending me the cover letter of the Walkowski report which he had told me he would send me two weeks, he said he just forgot and that he would get it to me. He said they weren't going to do anything about the notice on the board and that I should speak to the Clerk's office.

Finding no satisfaction there, I asked to see someone from Councilor Yoon's office, the voice of transparency on the council. A nice gentleman went down to look at the notice with me and didn't really identify any problems with it.

Back up on the fifth floor I asked him to see if Sam could take it down, and let him know that if it wasn't down by tomorrow I would probably file for a motion for contempt. John Tobin came by and joined the conversation and I let him know my concerns about the posting as well.

I then went to the Mayor's office and asked if they knew who appointed the Boston Licensing Commission? They didn't know but they directed me up to Room 809, where I then proceeded. I was interested in the Licensing Commission because they were the group that granted a liquor license for Dianne Wilkerson's FBI sting informant, and clearly they could do all sorts of malleable things for politically connected people. I wanted to know who was responsible for appointing such public servants.

A nice lady at the licensing commission told me that the Governor appoints the 3 members of the commission. She told me that Romney had appointed the current people but that one person had died recently so there were only two on the commission: Connolly (Councilor John's Dad) and Mr. Pukaski.

I thought "hey, what a great job for me!" so I said "how do I apply for the job and what are the qualifications?" They said someone new should be appointed soon, but they didn't know what the qualifications are and that I would have to ask the Governor.

So I went to the State House to see the Governor. At his office a State Trooper stopped me and asked what I wanted. I told him I'd like to apply for an appointment and set up a meeting with Mr. Patrick. He took one look at me and said "that ain't gonna happen" (I love how the servants of the people judge a book by its cover) before sending me to another office where I could write a letter asking for an appointment.

I went to the office of constituent services where I waited at the reception desk for about 5 minutes and no one came out. I went toward the back office where I heard numerous voices, one of which was saying jokingly "we are going to have start giving 'Dianne Wilkerson' tours of the State House". As I walked through the doorway into the room, a number of bright young eager faces looked over and the man who was speaking asked if he could help me. Without skipping a beat I said "I'm here for the Dianne Wilkerson tour." I got a few smiles, but clearly he was unhappy to be caught in an inappropriate comment. He escorted me back to the reception area where I told him I wanted to set up an appointment with the Gov, and apply for a position he appoints.

He wrote down the address I need to send a letter asking for a meeting, and the address of the Appointment's Office. I asked how I could find out what the requirements were for the job, and he gave me a card with a phone number. I asked why I couldn't just go back and talk to them and he said they were in a meeting. So, I picked up the phone and called the number and got transferred to the Appointment's person. I said I was interested in the Open position for the Licensing Board, she responded that there was no opening and I said I was just at the Licensing Board and they told me there was an opening. She said they had appointed Susan Iannella back in September.

I wonder when they are going to let the Licensing Board know? I don't even go looking for this stuff, all I wanted to know was who was responsible for appointing people who could so corruptly rig the process on behalf of felon Dianne Wilkerson. What we find is laziness? incompetence? I don't know, but it seems odd that a layperson can find out in 5 minutes that someone has been appointed to a board a month ago when the board doesn't even know?

Yet another example of why I'm not impressed with the efficiency and organization at City Hall.

Wilkerson and the whole lot of them doing it all behind closed doors

You have to read the FBI indictment of Dianne Wilkerson, it lays out everything I've been saying for years. They are all corrupt of transparent ideas, they are all involved in these back room deals out of the public eye. This is how business gets done in Boston.

You can read it at http://universalhub.com/


The Boston City Council, the Mayor, the BRA, the Boston Licensing Commission, the Senate President, other legislators, they are all involved in getting a piece of public property and a liquor license into an undercover FBI agents hand without public process, public review, etc.

This is how government works in Boston and Massachusetts.

Some positive things about Boston Government

After going to Michael Flaherty's Kitchen Table Talk the other night and hearing about how he has a tracking system in his office to keep track of constituent complaints and how vigilant his office was on following up on things, I decided to call his office and ask what was going on with a complaint about an illegal roof deck in my neighborhood that I talked to Michael directly about 3 years ago. I figured 3 years was a reasonable amount of time to get back to me on something, although for some reason I hadn't heard back from him.

I had a nice talk with John in Councilor Flaherty's office who said that they had only started tracking stuff within the last couple years. (7 or so years into Councilor Flaherty's term) He said he would look into it and get back to me. He also said that he sometimes reads my blog, and he wonders why I don't write more positive things, and why I don't critique the Mayor more often.

Well, I agree with him about the Mayor who is the real problem with progress in Boston, it is true that the Council doesn't have much power, and what power they have they don't use or leverage. I have also called the Mayor's office about this illegal deck thing many times over the years, and of course they have done nothing. I recently called the Mayor's office about the status of the Winthrop Square garage. This is the 100 million dollar or so property that the City is going to give away for free, and in the meantime we maybe giving away the millions in parking revenue a year to the BRA. It is hard to tell because no one answers any questions, and most of us have jobs and can't do the checking up on this which we should have the press and our elected officials to do. Anyway, I called the Mayor's office and a nice lady said "Oh, I will get you in touch with the parking garage guy". She transferred me and I got a disconnected line. I called back and got the same lady and explained the situation a bit further and she said, "oh, you have to talk to the BRA about that" and I got transferred to a gentleman's voicemail at the BRA". I left a message (this is at least a couple weeks ago) and surprise, surprise I have received no reply. To say that the Mayor's office is nonresponsive is an understatement.

But, this is a blog about positive things. John got me thinking about positive things about Boston government and two people immediately came to mind: Gary Moccia and Harry McGonagle. They are the number 2 and number 3 people at the Boston Building Department. They are both professionals who have degrees in the construction field and who have worked at 1010 Mass Ave. for many years. They deal with all sorts of construction problems and issues in the City, and they do it in a professional, helpful, cheerful way. My hat is off to them for the great way they deal with all the different people, competing interests, and favor wanting politicians who tug and pull them in different directions. They are an excellent example of why government should hire non-partisan professionals to do professional work.

However, it is my understanding that there is a city or state statute that the head of a building department be an engineer or architect. Instead, Mayor Menino has filled it with political cronies like the former head Kevin Joyce who didn't know a 2x4 from a hammer, but he knew how to answer the phone when the Mayor called and put the vices on people the Mayor was unhappy with. I think he ended up costing the City about $500,000 grand in legal issues before he was shown the door.

Next time you have an inspector visit your house ask him or her how they feel about calls from City Hall from the Mayor's office or City Councilors telling them how to do their jobs, whose house to look into, or more importantly whose house NOT to look into!

An evening with Michael Flaherty at his Kitchen Table Talk

Michael Flaherty came to our Claremont Neighborhood Association last night for one of his Kitchen Table Talks. He was accompanied by his assistant and was shadowed by Jay Walsh who works on neighborhood issues for the Mayor.

Michael asked questions and took comments, directing conversation as a good push poll person or marketer would. He started out by asking if people felt safe in their neighborhood, most answered yes. When one gentleman mentioned a physical attack, Michael almost gleefully let everyone know that rapes and violent crimes and break ins are up this year.

He then proceeded to tell us how awful the schools are, despite a few bright spots. He likened the school situation to a lottery, where you either win the lottery with your child or you move out of the city or go to private school. One resident agreed with him, and said how thankful she was to win the lottery. Michael exclaimed how happy he was that his three kids won the lottery as well and gave her a high five!

Who would ever have believed that City Councilor Flaherty would win the lottery 3 times in a row with his children and get them into some of the good schools? I wonder what the odds are that Mayor Menino's grandchildren also won the lottery? As my mother would say, miracles happen!

I asked Michael who was to blame for the bad schools, despite us spending $17,000 a year per student. He told us that the school system has lost 5000 students in the last 4 years or so, that a lot of money goes into maintenance, Court Street and transportation. I asked what he has done about it and he says he has asked tough questions in the city council hearings on education, but that he voted for the budget because if he didn't it would hurt the children.

We then got to my wife's biggest problem with the city: trash. Michael said "the city is filthy". A point agreed to by most of the residents. The Mayor's representative told us we have more trash cans than almost any neighborhood. Michael told us about pictures his constituents send him to him of bad jobs done by the trash disposal companies.

He talked about development and how the BRA doesn't do a good job of involving residents in the process of development. I asked him why doesn't he come to the neighborhoods when he knows a development is in the works and hold a hearing and get residents input and he claimed he is in the dark about what goes on at the 9th floor of City Hall, often until he reads it in the paper. He then said he had held such hearings. I suggest he do a Freedom of Information Act to the BRA asking for the documents of all currently proposed projects. He could also withhold the funding that the City Council gives them every year until they at least tell the city council what projects they are working on.

We finally ended up talking about CityStat the complaint monitoring system used by Somerville and many other cities around the country. He has been trying to implement it for years but he said the administration is fighting it. I had to ask him the same question 3 times before he finally answered. The question "how much will it cost?". The answer: "3 to 4 million". Since the City has a 10 million dollar surplus left over from last year, and the city council voted their staff a raise out of that surplus I asked why they didn't buy the Citistat program. He answered that the administration is against it.

We also talked about police details which Michael supports.

I came into the meeting determined not to distract the group with issues like the Open Meeting Law which no one really cares about it seems, and stuck to questions about fiscal policy and what Michael had been doing to fix problems in the city. I was afraid I bored some of my fellow CNA members however.

Michael is clearly gearing up for a Mayoral run. I have heard from many sources that he has already made the decision, including people who have spoken to him directly. The basic point of these meetings is to say "schools suck, the streets are filthy, crime is up, the BRA is corrupt, services are not professionally managed, and it is all the Mayors fault. In addition, he is not responsible for any of it because the City Council has no power and it isn't worth his time to try and do something because it would fail. But, he claims he has used his "bully pulpit" to let the people of Boston know that it is all the fault of the Mayor.

It reminds me of what Councilor Turner once told me about Councilor Hennigan, I paraphrase but it is something like "she found religion when she decided to run against the Mayor".

As someone who has known and realized that the Mayor and the BRA are the problem in this City for a long time, it will take a lot more straight talk from Michael before I believe his sincerity. 4 years ago I recall him telling everyone how 'things were getting better all the time', and he supported Mayor Menino in the last election. I'm most concerned with his excuse that there is nothing he can do about it: put proposals on Menino's desk for him to veto, to highlight the old world way of doing business in Boston, as opposed to the New Boston which Michael espouses.

Postscript: when I left the meeting one of the members who I don't know was walking her dog. I went to introduce myself, and apologize if I had taken up too much time with pointed questions. She had taken full part in the conversations (Michael does a great job of getting everyone involved) and I had thought she had been very impressed with Councilor Flaherty. I asked her what she thought and she replied "he is so full of shit" so point blank that I had to laugh out loud.

When are we going to get politicians who just speak the truth? Obama and McCain aren't leading the way with all of their programs, no cuts and the deficit will magically disappear. Don't believe it.

How much more have they spent?

Some people have asked me how much they have spent in total on their new attorney, Mary Jo Harris. I have been too busy to count it up exactly but it seems as if it is only about $10,000 or so, give or take. Of course the fine is only $10,0000 so again, they could just pay it and move on, but why do that when you can keep playing out the clock hoping that Kathleen, Shirley and I get struck by a meteorite!

Especially when they are using that plentiful resource: taxpayer money. Sure is nice to have unlimited taxpayer money on your legal defense.

No wonder Tom Menino is too busy working to stop Question 1 from being enacted to help Democratic nominee Sonia Chang Diaz!

Make $175 an hour reading my blog!

I got some financial documents from the City of Boston legal department this week. They are paying an outside attorney $175 an hour to read my blog!

Nice work if you can get it. Although I value my writing, I don't think it is worth that much!

Mike Ross-City Council President-I thought the councilors were afraid to talk to each other in the halls?

The Dorchester Reporter today announced that Councilor Ross and Councilor Murphy worked out an agreement for Councilor Ross and Councilor Murphy to be President and Vice President of the Council respectively. There are quotes from a number of councilors about how it went down, and who talked to who, etc. The article can be read at http://dotnews.com/ross.html

What I find so interesting is that when asked by the press about the Open Meeting Law and the court case which found them guilty ($200K of taxpayer money down the drain and counting to fight a $10,000 fine) the councilors usually give some version of "we are afraid to even talk to each other at the elevator", or "we don't even talk to each other" or "if there is a fire in West Roxbury I can't even call councilor Tobin to find out how I can help". But, obviously they are being disingenuous at best, and liars at worst. Clearly, they have no problems calling each other up, asking where they stand on being the next council president, or perhaps other issues.

If anyone believes what they are saying on this issue, please let me know: I have some Bear Stearns Stock to sell you.

On a positive note, congratulations to Councilor Ross on putting together the coalition. More courageously, I applaud Maureen Feeney for stepping down after the term limit she imposed.

Better than Mayor Menino who promised to only serve two terms, and who said to grade him on the school system. Only 58% of students getting a high school diploma, I would say that is a failing grade.

Some Great Music News-Hey Borneo!

When I was recently driving home from New Orleans after fixing some more hurricane damage, I heard a new song that I really enjoyed on a tiny independent station near the Pennsylvania/West Virginia border. It was a song that I guessed was called "Hey, Borneo" by the chorus, and it seemed to have a very liberal, anti-Bush and big oil kind of bent.

When I got home I googled it, and sure enough there is a new album out by a group called Firewater, which is made up of someone named Todd A. and random other musicians. I had never heard of him or them before. The album is called The Golden Hour, and gets its name from that beautiful last hour of sunlight that lends such a beautiful glow over the ocean when sitting on a beautiful beach in the south Pacific. Information about the band can be found at: http://www.firewater.tv/.

It turns out that Todd A was so fed up with the United States and George Bush (despite loving his country) that he headed to Southeast Asia and the Middle East to meet the people that supposedly hate us so and that we have to go to war with.
(Sound familiar? My kind of guy)

He would check into cheap hotels in India, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Israel and set up music jams: as he describes "I would tell the owner I wanted to have belly dancing without the belly dancers". He traveled with a Mac and used that to record the sounds and the songs. He got back in 2007 (wonder if we crossed paths, as we certainly visited many of the same places, and probably some of the same cheap hotels!) and put together this CD.

I got it in the mail a couple days ago and can't stop playing it. It is the best new album I have heard in years, with politically charged lyrics, myriad sounds and styles evocative of those parts of the world, and it is just danceable and fun to listen to. I can't recommend it enough.

There is also a youtube video about his trip and an explanation of his album at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eyn-OSDQp0

Enjoy!

Post about Council Pleading Guilty to Open Meeting Charges

I had earlier blogged about a Motion for Summary Judgment that the City Council sent to we three plaintiffs. As I wrote in that blog, the details aren't done yet. The other parties in the suit have asked me to take the blog down as they don't believe it conducive to final settlement of the case.

I disagree, and believe in transparency, but I'm part of a team so I have respectfully taken it down.

However, I do suggest calling your city councilor and the Mayor and ask why we are spending so much money on this, in these belt tightening times.

kevin

Against the Bailout and alternatives

I wrote my congressman and let him know I opposed the bailout. For those of us old enough to remember the Savings and Loan crisis and the fallout, this latest financial meltdown was all too predictable. Just as predictable that Tom Menino will raise taxes by the maximum 2.5 percent each year and the real estate taxes will go up as well.

In 1993 I bought my first house during those tough economic times. I had to put $60K down on a building price of $160,000.00. With that kind of equity investment you have a real stake in your property. In 2006 I sold a condominium in the South End for 1.1 million dollars and the buyer only had to put down $50,000.00. I knew then that this easy money was crazy, and my partner and I cashed out and stopped buying property.

How is it that someone with only a liberal arts Economics 1 class could see this downturn coming but few others did? The simple answer is probably greed.

As "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" decried almost 40 years ago, there has been a loss of pride, of quality, of knowledge of excellence in this country. It has been replaced with the quick buck, the flashy car, entertainment news, and celebrity. Sarah Palin is the latest end result of this, but I fear worse could be forthcoming.

Here is a simple alternative to the 700 billion bailout. Treat banks as they treat us. Let the big banks which need money come to the citizens, fill out an application and be approved or declined on the basis of their assets, their credit history and their ability to pay. We can set up a blue ribbon executive committee with all the left, right, and middle. How about a board of Congressman Frank and Boehner, Senators Dodd and Gregg, Paulson from the executive branch, and maybe Warren Buffett, the mayor of NYC, and Senator Bernie Sanders to represent the People.

The banks can present their need for money, get terms from the Bank of the People, where we take equity positions, and they can make repayment terms. It would be transparent because they would have to fill out their applications showing all their assets, debts, income, etc.

Any comments on why this is any crazier than just handing over more than enough money to set up Universal Health Care in this country?

Financial Truth about Wilkerson v. Diaz

I was disheartened by Adrian Walker not getting these facts correct. In addition, as one city councilor staffer told me, "city hall was a ghost town on election day. All of Menino's people were out working the polls for Diane".

If you see incorrect or insincere facts out there, please let Sonia's campaign know about it.




Fact Check: Wilkerson Comments on Barbara Lee
Dianne Wilkerson has repeatedly claimed (on Election night and again at her sticker campaign announcement event last night) that this election was "bought," calling out progressive philanthropist and Chang-Diaz donor Barbara Lee in particular:

Boston Herald (9/16/08): "My fear is that people will think this district is for sale," she said, claiming she was outspent. "There has been so much money spent in this process. It has been unprecedented for us."

Boston Phoenix (9/16/08): She called out Barbara Lee, the progressive philanthropist who helped back Chang-Diaz, as having bought the district, in so many words.

PolitickerMA (9/17/08): At her Election Night party Tuesday night, Wilkerson said that Lee spent an "inordinate amount of money" on the race, creating the perception "that this district is for sale."

Boston Herald (9/24/08): At a rally in Dorchester last night, Wilkerson said she would run as a Democrat in a sticker campaign "to make clear to all that are paying attention that this district is not for sale."


THE FACTS:
Barbara Lee, known for her support of female candidates, including many of Boston's female candidates of color (St. Fleur, Dorcena Forry, Cabral, Allen, Mota and Sen. Wilkerson herself in prior years), donated $500 to the Chang-Diaz campaign this year, the legal campaign finance limit.
Per the most recent campaign finance reports, Dianne Wilkerson raised and spent more money than Chang-Diaz this year -- $131,775 compared to $102,888. That figure is in addition to tens of thousands of dollars' worth of independent expenditures on Wilkerson's behalf, including mail pieces from labor organizations and political advocacy groups.
Dianne Wilkerson received nearly $100,000, 76% of her contributions, from donors outside the district, including $14,000 dollars from lobbyists and PACs.
In comparison, 49% of Chang-Diaz's donations were from donors inside the district, and 69% of her donations were from donors giving $100 or less. She received no money from PACs and only $100 from a lobbyist.
For Senator Wilkerson to make claims that the election was "bought" by one outside donor is not just false -- it's ludicrous when you put it up against the facts of who has actually funded her primary campaign and Chang-Diaz's primary campaign.

sam yoon's minutes proposal

Forgive the brevity, I broke my wrist playing basketball and can't type or write!

Offered by Councillor SAM YOON
> >
> > CITY OF BOSTON
> > IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
> >
> > AN ORDINANCE
> > REGULATING THE BOSTON CITY COUNCIL
> > MEETING MINUTES
> >
> > WHEREAS, The City of Boston currently provides, via the City Clerk,
> > City Council meeting minutes and these records are available to the
> > public on the internet; and
> >
> > WHEREAS, The Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law is meant to
> > cultivate public dialogue on governmental action and ensures this by
> > imposing minimal standards for meeting minute content; and
> >
> > WHEREAS, The City already meets these record standards; however, we
> > should go beyond the minimum standards and make our City Council
> > minutes not only publicly available, but more understandable; and
> >
> > WHEREAS, Increasing the readability of our Council meeting minutes
> > will foster public understanding and involvement in local government;
> > NOW, THEREFORE
> >
> > Be it ordained by the City of Boston, as follows that the City of
> > Boston Code be amended by adding the following:-
> >
> > Section 1.
> > CBC Chapter II is hereby amended by appending the following to 2-10.1
> > after the first paragraph:-
> >
> > (a) In addition to keeping records of City Council meetings pursuant
> > to M.G.L. c. 39, s. 23B, M.G.L. c. 66, s. 5A, and 950 CMR 32.00, the
> > City Clerk shall make comprehensible City Council minutes.
> >
> > For purposes of this subsection only "comprehensible City Council
> > minutes" means a record of a City Council meeting translated from
> > parliamentary procedure wording into plain language, including a brief
> > summary of each topic discussed and/or all votes or formal decisions
> > made during the meeting.
> >
> > Under no circumstances shall the comprehensible City Council minutes
> > include the substance of debates by and among the members of the City
> > Council pursuant to chapter 447 of the Acts of 1947.
> >
> > The City Clerk shall make the comprehensible City Council minutes
> > electronically accessible on the City's website no later than two
> > weeks after the meeting in question.
> >
> >
> > Section 2.
> > The provisions of these sections will become effective sixty (60) days
> > after passage.
>

Thoughts at Sonia Chang-Diaz's victory party!!

First of all huge congratulations to Sonia. I met her for lunch back in 2006 when she was running and I have supported her ever since. Clara and I had a fundraiser at our house a few weeks ago where she answered questions openly and honestly, and where she wasn't afraid to disagree with some in the crowd, even Shirley Kressel.

Deborah Shah, her campaign manager deserves great accolades as well keeping the campaign focused on how to get to 50.1 percent and not get bogged down in stuff that isn't productive.

Someone we dragged to our house who was uncommitted wrote to me today "Great news about Sonia— totally worth the 50 bucks and 3 minutes it took to vote yesterday. “We the people” won a great victory and we got rid of an arrogant pol. It sends a message. Who’s next? Kudos to both of you for stepping up to the plate to help make this happen."



The first thing I noticed when I got to the party last night was that there wasn't a single elected official present. It truly was "we the people". There wasn't anyone I saw in a suit and tie, just average people looking for some accountability and honesty from an elected official, not looking for a handout and a payout. I thought to myself, "how long before Menino & Co. try to put their hooks into her". It really was an amazing victory: Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino, Congressman Capuano, Councilor Yoon, the Teachers Union, etc. all behind a convicted felon who has transgressed multiple laws and norms of society. It really is true that Massachusetts is a corrupt pyramid of power all looking out for each other. I pray that Sonia has the strength of character which she spoke last night of getting from her mother to resist the temptation of power.

Sure enough, it wasn't long before the well dressed suits of Councilor Tobin and Councilor Flaherty came to the party to press the flesh and offer congratulations. One of Menino's sharpies was there as well. A City Council staffer told me off the record today that City Hall was a ghost town yesterday as Menino had all his people out working the polls, doing whatever he could to take care of "one of his own", a fellow politician who could be counted on to give tax breaks to developers, corporate welfare to the rich, and lip service to the rest of us.

It was great to be on the winning side, thanks to everyone of the THE PEOPLE who worked so hard for this victory.

Status of City Council excluding itself from Open meeting Law-and an open Debate challenge to any of them

While I was doing boring paperwork yesterday, I took the time to call my city councilors and see where they stand on the Walkowski report and recommendations that seeks to exclude themselves from the Open Meeting Law as currently constituted.

First some background. The Rules committee chaired by Maureen Feeney received the Walkowski report about 3 weeks ago, had an initial meeting and then a subsequent meeting a week or two later. At that second meeting a vote was taken to send the report to the attorney generals office, the Mass. Municipal Association City Corporate Council, and the Municipal Clerks Association for their comments and review. Only Chuck Turner voted against this, he told me, because he wanted to send it on to those organizations with the stipulation that those organizations were to understand that the City Council approves of these suggestions.

So, I wanted to call up my district councilor (Turner) and the four at large councilors and Council President Feeney to get their positions on this. Other than Turner who was not afraid to say he supports it, the general message from the councilors was that they were all for transparency. But, how can you be for transparency when you vote to have a report forwarded for review that asks for exclusion from the Open Meeting Law. They seem to want to have this dance of saying they personally are for transparency, it is just others who are moving this forward. However, if they were for transparency they should have spoken against this nonsense, and stopped wasting everyone's time with it. Surely, the Attorney General has better things to do than review a report which the Council supposedly doesn't agree with?

Councilor Connolly's office told me that John was an ardent supporter of Transparency. I asked what he had done ardently to support transparency but they couldn't answer that. His chief of staff said the councilor would call me back. Still haven't heard from him.

I called Councilor Murphy's office and no one picked up.

I called Councilor Flaherty's office and had a nice conversation with a staff member. He assured me that under no circumstances would the councilor vote to exempt himself from the Open Meeting Law. He said that Councilor Flaherty only sought clarification on the law. He said Flaherty cares a lot about transparency, and agreed that transparency is a problem at city hall especially with organizations like the BRA and the City Budget which buries all sorts of items. The gentleman even called me back this morning as we apparently missed each other at the Sonia Chang-Diaz victory party last night. My question to him is: what questions would Michael Flaherty like clarification on? His position for at least 2 years has been that he wants clarification. Why not be transparent about what you are not clear about? It is only Shirley Kressel, the District Attorney, Kathleen Devine and I that have brought about OML issues, why not ask some of us? He said he would get back to me. I appreciate the fact that they are at least responsive, if not giving a very clear answer. Flaherty is on the rules committee and he could have voted against the Walkowski report going any further but he didn't.

I spoke to Councilor Yoon's office and a nice lady there told me that Sam cares a great deal about Transparency. He, though, is also on the rules committee and voted to forward the Walkowski report on. It is kind of hard to be both for something and against something at the same time. Unless you are a politician, I guess. She told me (see earlier blog post) that Sam is introducing a bill to make the City Council minutes more readable for the public. Councilor Flaherty's office told me that Councilor Flaherty is in favor of this action. I said I'd love to see the bill and asked if she could email a copy to me. She said she would. I didn't receive it yesterday and I called her this morning and she said she would send it, but that the chief of staff had to send it. I still haven't received it. I do agree with Sam Yoon that the City Council minutes are atrocious, in particular the August 6, 2008 minutes which are so inaccurate that someone might even be inclined to think that they are in violation of the Open Meeting Law and might think about filing a lawsuit (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)!!!

I called Councilor Turner's office and they said he would call back. He did give me a call and then proceeded to explain to me why he voted against this Walkowski thing, because he wanted the council to be more proactively for it. He feels the council is even less effective than it was before. He feels it is important for the councilors to be able to meet in private to "build relationships". He told me that he thinks both the Superior Court and the Appeals court were wrong about the Tularemia decision. He thinks the Tularemia situation was an emergency. I said "but Chuck, the Tuleramia problem happened 6 months earlier, in the summer. How was it an emergency in January?" But he insisted it was an emergency, so I said "Chuck, why don't you read the Open Meeting Law, if something is an emergency there are provisions for having a meeting why didn't you just follow the law?" He said something about it being 8:30 in the morning and they couldn't find everyone or something to that effect. I forgot to ask him the most important question: if this Tularemia meeting was an emergency and so important, than why did the City Council argue in their legal filings in McCrea v. Flaherty that the City Council has no jurisdiction or control over the Public Health Commission, or for that matter over any public health issues in the city? How could something which they have no control over be an emergency? The Council didn't argue in court that the Tularemia meeting was such an emergency that they just had to meet that day, they argued that the Council has no power or authority over anything to do with Public Health, Tularemia or Boston University so it couldn't be considered a meeting since they were essentially meeting about nothing. Maybe this will become known, like all great Chess moves get named, as the Seinfeld Defense. Councilor Turner then went on for a few minutes without letting me get in a word edgewise, where he said that before you present anything to a group you work out the details before hand, and that I as a businessman get to meet behind closed doors, so he should be allowed as well. (except that in both cases it is my money at stake, and so I should be allowed to the meeting I think) He said he would come anywhere, anytime and defend his position on this, then finished with "I'm sick of this shit, Ok, take care" and hung up.

I ran into Joe Heisler at the Sonia Chang Diaz victory party last night and suggested a debate about transparency and the Open Meeting Law and the Walkowski report. He agreed to host it, if any Councilor would come on and support their actions and positions. Councilor Turner had given me a great idea.

So, how about it will any Councilors come on Joe Heisler's TV show and have a debate about how we can make the City more transparent, and defend them sending a report to the Attorney General which has the suggestion of exempting the Boston City Council from the Open Meeting Law?

PS. I just got a call from Justin Holmes from Councilor Feeney's office. He was good enough to clarify some information for me: which organizations the council is forwarding the report to, and the fact that the Rules Committee commissioned the report about 14 months ago. He referred me to Anne Hess Braga to get the information on what Mr. Walkowski was instructed to do by the Rules Committee.

Interestingly enough, the City Council did not inform corporate counsel that they commissioned the Walkowski report despite the ongoing Lawsuit about the OML. When the Walkowski report came out it was a surprise to them as well.

Victory for the good guys at last!

I'm very happy today because yesterday, Sonia Chang-Diaz unseated Dianne Wilkerson. I've supported Sonia since her last run in '06 and am hopeful about her ability to remain uncorrupted by the powers that be.

Sam Yoon to file legislation for more transparency

I called Sam Yoon's office today to see how he was going to vote on the Wolkowski proposal to eliminate the City Council from having to obey the Open Meeting Law. His staff person said that Sam was going to vote for more transparency.

She also said that he is going to file an ordinance(her words) for the City Council minutes to be better understood. She said that Sam feels the City Council minutes are very hard for citizens to understand and that he believes that citizens should be more involved. She said that even she can't understand the minutes of the City Council sometimes.

Good for Sam! I asked for them to email me Sam's proposed legislation. If I get that I will post it.

How to get City Council report on excluding themselves from open meeting law!

I saw on Universal Hub that Councilor Feeney had a press release about the Council always wanting transparency. So I called her office to get a copy of the Wolkowski report. I asked to have it electronically (you know, save trees, save postage, be able to post it so more people could see it and well, make it more transparent!!!) and they said they were only sending out hardcopies. I asked them to send me one.

I then again asked why they weren't making it available electronically and they said there was a concern that if they made it available electronically that it might be altered!!!!! Apparently, they have never heard of PDF's. I then suggested that they post it on the City website for all to see. They said they would take it under consideration. I asked to have Councilor Feeney give me a call to talk about how they could be more transparent about this.

Another good question is how long they have been working on this, and how much it costs. They supposedly commissioned this about 14 months ago. Mr. Wolkowski was paid $70K or so in 2007 according to the Herald website, who knows how much in 2008. I have put a FOIA request into the council to find out this information.

The total now must be around $150,000 that the council has spent fighting transparency and the Open Meeting Suits all without taking maybe an hour of their time and sitting down with Shirley Kressel, Kathleen Divine, and myself to discuss how they might avoid all these problems with Open Meeting Suits. Next time Councilor Flaherty is complaining about how much is being wasted on studies of a new City Hall, a good reporter should ask how much they have been wasting on this stuff.

We have offered to sit down with the council to try and work things out, but for three years they have refused. A real absence of leadership, when there is free taxpayer money to spend. Even George Bush came around to negotiating with North Korea.

Finally, if you want to see an example of what I consider to be a violation of the Open Meeting Law (could another lawsuit be far behind?) go to the posting board on the first floor of City Hall, in the upper left hand corner and read the posting for the rules committee.

The posting essentially says, and I'm paraphrasing: "This is the notice of the rules committee. We shall meet from time to time when we want to discuss the Open Meeting Law. We aren't going to tell you when or where. Consider yourself noticed."

If they are all about transparency, why not post the report on line to get citizen comments? I thought we were going green?

By the way, they have never been sued for talking in the hallways. That is just their smokescreen to try and exempt themselves from the law so they really have more backroom dealings.